Immigration Maths

Hollie McNish does the maths for you rapping. Just listen.

http://www.upworthy.com/next-time-someone-tells-you-that-immigrants-are-destroying-our-country-show-them-this

Her website: http://holliemcnish.com/

Austerity weights on taxpayers, not migrants!

I have always liked the Financial Times, so as an assiduous and faithful reader, I got quite a shock when I read yesterday's crap editorial supporting the Government's standoff with the European Commission. The FT seems to believe in that mythical beast of ‘benefit tourism', invented by the populist media. People don't normally leave their own country for miserable welfare benefits. There are people, many from the UK, who travel to eastern Europe to get their teeth fixed. Shall we crack down on that?

The proposal by the UK government to restrict access to benefits and, possibly, services for European citizens is a clear case of discrimination on the grounds of nationality and therefore in breach of the Maastricht Treaty. It is also disingenuous, xenophobic and dangerous. It is disingenuous because migrants contribute to the public pursue much more than they receive. This is supported by research at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and research centres at UCL and the University of Oxford. 

Migration is vital to economic growth; restrictions on rights will deter migration and impact adversely on the British economy. The British welfare system needs reform, not cut backs. If one is concerned about the costs to the state, one should wonder why the government keeps on following the wrong economic policies. 

It is austerity that is a weight on taxpayers, not migrants!

The move is xenophobic for it fails to recognise the economic and cultural contribution of migrants and the exploitation many of them suffer. It is also dangerous at a time of democratic and economic crisis on which far-right movements are capitalising. The government might cherish a court battle with ‘Europe’ for political expediency, but it is Britain that has everything to lose in giving in to populist xenophobia. It is disconcerting to see the authoritative Financial Times fail to understand the importance of upholding the rights of all citizens, sustaining a liberal economy, and recognising the dignity of all people.

Same-Sex Marriage & Freedom of Religion in Britain & France

The opposition to same-sex marriage in France has turned ugly leaving 36 wounded after yesterday’s demonstration. It is worth reflecting on ‘marriage’ from a legal, social, and religious perspective in France and in Britain. At the core of the matter is not ‘gay rights’ or marriage, but freedom of conscience and religion.

Legal: Rights and Conscience

People, in France and Britain, are mostly fine with the legal recognition of rights for homosexual couples, afforded by the French ‘pacs’ and British ‘civil partnerships’. I have an issue with these contracts and the marriage contract in that they lack terms & conditions (see post), but that's another issue.

The main problem is that some people, in both countries, keep on conflating the law with morality. One can believe that homosexuality is wrong (morality), but one should not impose one’s (particular) morality on all others (law). There are some moral principles that need to impose on all, such as respect for other people’s lives, property etc. Freedom of conscience and religion protects one from being imposed another’s religious or ideological viewpoint. See Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Social: Are homosexuals imposing their morality on others?

Some argue that the recognition of same-sex marriage changes the ‘definition’ of marriage thus impacting on heterosexual couples. They are right, to a point; yet the legal framework is only a recognition of a social reality. There are homosexual couples and they have children. 

Families and marriage have changed throughout history. During Roman times, adoption had nothing to do with providing a home to an orphan, and many people were part of the familia, who were not blood relations. The legal status of women has also changed marriage and families ... but of course, for some marriage a religious sacrament, isn't it?

Religion: Love, Romance and God

The Catholic Church took over a thousand years to make marriage into a sacrament. At the beginning of Christianity it was the lesser evil. Chastity was the newfangled thing and marriage was shunned. Until Constantine (325 CE), it was a private matter. For the Cathars sex and marriage were evil. They got massacred, but that’s another story. For a long time, it didn’t need a priest and happened according to local customs. Then, came the Reformation and the Catholic Church recognised marriage (and other ‘sacraments’) in Canon Law, in 1547.

Marriage was a jolly good thing in ancient Judaism, especially if you were a man. It included polygamy and if a woman’s husband died, you would have to marry her late husband’s brother. It was a way for men to get heirs and women to get livelihood. I’m not saying that there was no love and romance, only that love is a separate issue. There’s a lot of romance in the bible (also in the Talmud). I recommend reading about the love between Jonathan and David ... oops!

Freedom of Religion and of Conscience

France’s much prided läicité (secularism) has shown that secularism is everything but neutral. Opponents of same-sex marriage would argue that the morality of homosexuals is being imposed on others. That's nonsene because the law does not prevent anyone to form heterosexual partnerships or to think that homosexuality is wrong. That’s freedom of conscience (Art. 9!).

In Britain, MPs, who get easily confused by all matters to do with the law, got mixed up between legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (done & dusted!) and religion. So those who voted against same-sex marriage, voted against freedom of religion.

Before the latest act, only some religious marriages (=religious act performed by a figure) were recognised by the law. Churches and synagogues that had been celebrating same-sex marriages for decades (yep!) could not be granted the same legal recognition that was granted to the heterosexual marriages they themselves celebrated. The opposition to the recognition of all marriages celebrated by religious institutions means that some religious authorities want to impose their reading of Scriptures and tradition on other religious authorities. It’s nothing to do with legal rights, only with one’s religious acts being recognised. It's freedom of religion. Remember the Cathars? Now go in peace!

Immigration Facts (updated)

Here are links with research on immigration:

Immigration & (unlikely) pressure on health service in UK & Germany:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/11/07/immigration-and-health-wadsworth/

The game changer? Immigration & the media:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/oana-romocea/immigration-the-game-changer-british-politics_b_3260594.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Migrants are net contributors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/uk-benefits-eu-migrants-what-crisis

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/migrants-benefits-and-public-services.html

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Press_release_A8fiscalimpact.pdf

Immigration raises income:  http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/22/immigration_raises_american_income.html

Crime doesn't rise in high immigration areas:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/28/immigration-impact-crime

Compilation of research:
http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/UKEUMigration.html

On lump of labour fallacy:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100208823/immigration-if-only-politicians-would-lead-not-follow/

Reflections on growth and immigration:
http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-economic-objectives-of-immigration.html

The problem with Migration Watch:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/jonathan-portes-the-pressure-group-playing-fast-and-loose-with-evidence-6287414.html

The Lost Voice of Liberalism

I finally left the Liberal Democrats a few weeks ago, after Nick Clegg’s anti-immigration stance. This has really crossed the line for me. 

I was supportive of the coalition in the first year and thought that many of the initial policies demonstrated responsibility and a liberal approach. Since then, the Liberal Democrats have acted as a fig leaf for catastrophic government policies. It is disheartening to hear Liberal Democrats defending failed austerity policies, passing NHS plans that mimic the privatisation of the 1990s, and nodding through a welfare reform that demonises the unemployed at a time when finding a job is difficult. To my knowledge, there has been no effort to investigate the best policies by comparing with other European systems. Indeed this government has succeeded in isolating Britain from the EU. The Liberal Democrats have failed to be the voice of liberalism.

Over the years, I have been ignored by the party even though the policies I suggested were sound, including raising the issue tax avoidance through various loopholes such as transfer pricing (see article), and reform of higher education rather than play around with fees (see post). I am, therefore, under no illusion that I could possibly influence the leadership to change course. Yet, last month, I wrote to Nick Clegg (see previous post) asking for the Liberal Democrats to stop the government’s proposals to curtail benefits for immigrants. Not only did I not receive a reply, but I witnessed the Liberal Democrats’ leader espouse the same xenophobic rhetoric.

This is not a compromise resulting from being in government; it is a populist and degrading move. It is not economically sound, it will only mean more illegal immigration. If there is growth, something the government has lost sight of, there will be immigration. If there is no growth, immigrants leave or choose better economies. Immigration brings enormous benefits (see Jonathan Portes’ blog post). 

There are problems, of course, mostly dependent on the excessive restrictions on immigration that create trafficking and illegal immigration, that force immigrants to blackmailed and live in appalling conditions.  It is also a challenge to provide good services, make the economy grow for all and build trust among all residents. It is the challenge of a pluralist society. Thus, above all, rules on immigration portray what kind of society we want to be. 

It seems that the government wants a closed, fearful and racist society. This is not the Britain I know, but I might be wrong. It might be the Britain the government is fostering. I, therefore, refuse any association with this government. The country has lost the voice of liberalism, the Liberal Democrats have lost all dignity.

Immigration, Mr Clegg, ain't so bad!

My letter to Nick Clegg on the latest proposals on immigration. Dear Mr Clegg, I have read about the latest government proposals over benefits for immigrants and I am shocked that the Liberal Democrats do not seem to be opposing the changes. The whole debate on immigration has been dominated by negative and hateful rhetoric for many years. I have been living in the UK for over 15 years where I have studied, worked and served as a Liberal Democrat councillor. During my years as a councillor, I have never heard my constituents mentioning my nationality. Yet, the media and political parties have legitimised a discourse that is narrow-minded, racist and bigoted. The loss of confidence in the immigration system is not a result of Labour’s miscalculation of possible Polish immigrants, as you suggested in an interview, but the constant negative rhetoric over immigration and foreigners, and the inability of implementing effective policies. A report by the Migration Observatory of the University of Oxford found that public opinion in Britain is more strongly opposed to immigration than public opinion in other comparable European and North American countries. Political parties are directly responsible for this. Another report by the Migration Observatory found that the net fiscal contribution of migrants is higher than the UK-born value. In 2003-2004 the net fiscal contribution of migrants was negative, however it was less negative than that of the UK-born individuals. An LSE report found that immigrants are generally younger and better educated than British-born. They tend to be employed and less likely to live in social housing. There is little evidence of an overall negative impact on jobs and wages. A recent Home Office report (N. 68, November 2012) reported on the emigration from the UK. In 2011, 57% of the people emigrating from the UK were EU and non-EU citizens. The “migration of EU citizens is more ‘circular’ than of non-EU citizens”. Thus, the ‘threat’, if there ever was one, of a surge of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania lacks evidence. Immigration rhetoric has only produced bad policies, including the revenue-making test and ceremony for British naturalisation, not to mention its absurd and ideological questions. The way successive governments have tried to define ‘Britishness’ has bordered on racist. I do not believe the government propaganda reflects the Britain I know, which is far more liberal than its political parties and media.  Considering that “the UK ranks eighth highest in the world in terms of the number of its nationals living abroad”, the British government should welcome and support new immigrants. It is when one feels valued that one is encouraged to give back. Leaving one’s country is always difficult and painful. This should not be exacerbated by spite and discrimination.  The government proposals go against fundamental liberal principles, European citizenship and, above all, human dignity. Are the Liberal Democrats capitulating to the same xenophobia?  yours sincerely, Francesca

Sowing the seeds of an Italian spring

The Italian election resulted in a deadlock with no clear winner. But while Italy is stuck between politics as usual and a sterile protest vote, the seeds of a ‘liberal revolution’ have discretely been sown. Could this mark the beginning of an Italian spring?

Read my article here.